Tomas Gorny ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The person now has coverage in RS on the draft, non-promotional and should be unsalted and recreated. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Could you give us some hints? What sources? What draft? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: Please see Draft:Tomas Gorny for the sources including one from the Huffington Post. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment (e/c) The nominator recently declined the AFC submission of Draft:Tomas Gorny but now considers the subject is notable. However, the article has been salted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (2nd nomination). It's beyond me whether it is appropriate for people here to give an opinion on the merits of the draft. Thincat ( talk) 17:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Thincat: I only declined that AFC submission because it has one unreilable source like his LinkedIn profile but now removed and resumbitted. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt and allow recreation. I looked at a few of the references in the draft. Certainly, between the Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, Business Insider, and Forbes we've got more than enough WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment The AFD in question was closed January 2016. The primary point of DRV is to appeal disputed deletion decisions. It's why WP:DELREVD requires the closing administrator to be approached first before opening up a DRV. WP:DRVPURPOSE criteria 3 does talk about presenting new information since the deletion but in the context of the primary mandate of DRV, this is to provide new evidence that was not presented at the AFD that would have changed the outcome of the AFD. Considering most of the new sources provided are from July and August 2016, meaning they did not exist yet, I don't think this is relevant to the purpose of a "deletion review". A delete consensus at an AFD is not a lifetime sentence for an article; DRV is not required by policy in order to recreate an article. I would say very few articles that were deleted via AFD come back to DRV before they are recreated. In terms of addressing WP:G4, I don't believe it would apply as it is specifically outlined in the policy: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I would argue these new sources and even the prose of the article are different enough than the deleted version. Most importantly, it should be noted that it's not the deletion that's being requested here, it's the request for un-protection. The protection was not part of the January AFD outcome. However, the nominator was sent here to DRV from WP:RUP because an administrator reviewed the article and deemed them to be essentially the same. I've looked at the article and didn't come necessarily to the same conclusion, especially considering the new sources and content. Mkdw ^talk 02:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt and allow recreation. For WP:SALT the policy is to consult the salting admin in preference to the deleting admin but it gives a wide choice of approaches. I hadn't found the discussion at RUP when I commented previously and it looks as if that discussion did not consider the state of Draft:Tomas_Gorny. Anyway, the response there was unnecessarily cantankerous. I see no need for another AFD. Thincat ( talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt per nom. Why was it salted, and how do you find the salting log? As at least one experienced editor says "new sources", allow recreation and testing at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ SmokeyJoe: Special:Log/protect will show you the salting log. Stifle ( talk) 08:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So will the log link in the drv header. Interspersed with all the other logs, but salting's best understood in context of deletion log entries anyway. — Cryptic 09:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Of course, silly me. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The specific reason it was salted, apparently, was because it was a cut-and-paste-and-barely-edited recreation of the old article, complete with "[edit]" and "[10]" and so on in the first revision at the ends of headers and instead of references. — Cryptic 09:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • We could ask the salter User:Jzg to comment, though I don't think there's much to say. All pretty Ho hum. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Pinging JzG again per SmokeyJoe above, as that is the capitalization he uses and the ping may not work otherwise. (Yes, it's a redlink.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• I salted because it was a cut and paste repost. Overall, I think this article is the result of some payment or other inducement. That said, I am happy to leave it to others, but note that the existing draft would be a G4 repost per the AfD, as it's essentially the same article, so a new draft needs to be prepared first. Oh, and this us not he first time I gave explained this. The draft was submitted before with the same content and the same explanation. Somebody is really keen on getting this very minor person on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  Specifically to this... So what if someone paid for it? It's just an assumption, obviously, but I'm not naive enough to think it's an inaccurate one. Does the guy meet inclusion criteria, or not? If he does, then we include him, if not, then we exclude him. The presumption of possible payment should never be used as a weapon against marginally notable people who apparently desire to be included. Jclemens ( talk) 02:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  Am I misunderstanding the various histories, JzG? The AFD was in January this year, the recreation and salting were in February but the most significant references in the current draft were not published until April and June. [1] [2] [3] [4] Thincat ( talk) 07:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

This is exactly what I was highlighting in my above comment. The draft heavily relies on sources published after the AFD and obviously not a cut and paste of the previous article. There are entirely new sentences and phrasing. I don't think it could be justified as being deleted against G4 when the two versions are actually compared against one another. Mkdw ^talk 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt and move to mainspace and it's not clear to me, if the current draft would be G4 eligible, given the coverage present in the draft, that the 2nd AfD was properly closed. That is, there are currently a lot of sources in the draft which provide non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, clearly meeting the GNG. If necessary to mainspace this, then Overturn the 2nd AfD as not reflecting the sourcing currently (and presumably previously) present, regardless of nose counting. Jclemens ( talk) 02:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The request should have been granted at WP:RFUP considering that the new draft used newly acquired sourcing and was certainly not a cut and paste of the previously deleted article. As far as I'm concerned in the context of DRV, the AFD was closed correctly by unanimous consensus by the participants to delete the article. The DRV should be closed as unsalt or return to RFUP noting that a number of the participants here believe the draft does not qualify under G4. Mkdw ^talk 19:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

That clears a lot of it up, thanks. Trying to figure out what is going on is a bit problematic when one cannot view deleted revisions. So yes: no need to overturn the previous AfD, because the G4 was clearly inappropriate because more sources had been added. Jclemens ( talk) 21:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

So it might, but the text is the same. I honestly believe it was supplied by the subject. Guy ( Help!) 23:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Over my decade of editing, I've contacted at least three separate individuals when writing about them. Mind you, no one paid me for anything, but still: what is the big deal if the subject supplies text about themselves? It's either NPOV and supported by reliable sources, or it's not. Jclemens ( talk) 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Lead:

Tomas Gorny is a Polish American tech entrepreneur. He is the CEO of Nextiva and the founder of Nextiva, IPOWER, Internet Communications, SiteLock, and UnitedWeb. He resides in Scottsdale, AZ.

Tomas Gorny (born August 21, 1975) is a Polish-born American businessman. He is the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Unitedweb and Nextiva, a cloud business communications company. In 2001 he founded iPower (formerly iPowerweb), a website hosting company. By 2003 IPOWER became the fastest growing website hosting provider in the United States.

Draft mentions SiteLock and omits the date of birth. Deleted article lead does not mention where he currently resides. We see this pattern continue all the way through the article.

Content about early life:

Gory was born in Zabrze, Poland to working class parents in 1975. They purchased him an Atari when he was 12. He learned to program the Atari to make games. His family moved to Germany when he was 14 where he attended business school. He started a PC distribution business when he was 17. At the age of 20, he immigrated to the United States. He knew no English at the time.

Tomas was born and raised in Poland. He attended college in Germany, but dropped out two months before graduation to move to the United States in 1996.

The draft article is significantly expanded and uses sources from Business Insider and the Chicago Tribune to source the information specifically about his teenage and early 20s. Let's look at wording around IPOWER since it seems to be the company that's the most widely covered in both the draft and deleted article:

He started IPOWER, a web hosting company, in 2001 with capital from his credit card. In 2007, IPOWER was merged with Endurance International. The company was sold to Warburg Pincus and Goldman Sachs in 2011 for close to $1 billion. The company is now apart of Endurance International Group, a publicly traded company.

In October 2001, Tomas founded iPower and served as CEO for 7 years, growing the company to the second largest web hosting service provider in the United States with over one million customers.In 2007, Tomas orchestrated a merger between IPOWER and Endurance International Group, and until the partial sale to Warburg Pincus and Goldman Sachs, he remained the largest individual shareholder. Endurance International Group (NASDAQ: EIGI) went public in 2013 and Tomas remains on the board of directors of the company.

Perhaps there's an undisclosed paid aspect to motivations behind these edits. We have WP:COIN to raise those concerns and many WP:TNT would apply. However, I do not think we could reasonably state here that WP:G4 applies on the claims that this is a "cut and paste" "same text" "recreation" of the deleted article. It's not. Using administrative policies that do not apply is not the way to prevent an article about this individual from being created. If you strongly feel that this article should not be on Wikipedia, then as an editor, you could nominate the article for another AFD or bring up your concerns at COIN. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply